From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Jan 27 00:54:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA20419 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:54:38 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id AAA25063 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:52:37 -0600 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:52:37 -0600 Message-Id: <200001270652.AAA25063@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1511 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, January 27 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1511 In this digest: RE: IN> Seraph in trouble IN> Players and GMS? IN> NYC (was Re: IN> Lilim are Demons) Re: Fwd: Re: IN> Lilim are Demons Re: IN> Lilim are Demons Re: IN> [ADMIN] Nothing But Plain Text! Re: IN> Lilim are Demons Re: IN> NYC (was Re: IN> Lilim are Demons) Re: IN> intro, and starting out IN> Eli Re: IN> A new Demonic Band -- Hamsters Re: IN> Eli Re: IN> Eli RE: IN> Eli IN> Alternate Angels IN> Re: IN -- Demon Prince of Hamsters Re: IN> Alternate Angels Re: IN> Song of Fruition Fwd: Re: IN> A new Demonic Band -- Hamsters Re: IN> intro, and starting out Re: Fwd: RE: IN> Seraph in trouble Re: IN> Eli IN> IN Movie: Instinct Re: IN> Alternate Angels IN> Muppets IN> Prince of Gambling? Re: IN> Prince of Gambling? Re: IN> Prince of Gambling? Re: IN> Prince of Gambling? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:18:28 -0600 From: "Trent" Subject: RE: IN> Seraph in trouble This was actually me. >> Well if the Lilim has a nefarious plot of it's own going on then getting a >>Seraph to help with that diabolical plot is always fun. This would depend a >>great deal on you campaign. >>Fathering/Mothering the Lilim's child could also be entertaining. >Doesn't that involve giving up a Force? And being pregnant would require a >geas-6 (year of service). I was being whimsical. And I think it would really depend on who carried the child. I don't recall the baby mechanics offhand so can't really say about the force. >>Also good >>if the Lilim is just being spiteful is to have the poor Seraph publicly aid >>a plot of Secrets. >Yeah... hmmm... except she can't be made to *keep* secrets, since a lowly >Geas-4 won't allow the infliction of dissonance... Ah but the point then isn't to make her keep the secret - it's to make sure everyone knows that she helps Secrets and then she has to deal with her superiors unhappiness as well as loss of status. Trent Ofanite of Doubt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:40:36 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Players and GMS? In message , David Rodemaker writes > >As an aside how many IN GM's do we have on the list and how many Players? By >this I mean how many are actually performing those roles at this general >time? > I referee. I tried my hand at playing in two promising looking PBeM campaigns that started from this list, but unfortunately they both died before ever really taking off. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:34:07 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> NYC (was Re: IN> Lilim are Demons) Doug Muir wrote: > >Am presently running them through a combination of _No Dinero_ and an >adventure of my own creation called "The Demon of New York City". The >Demon went missing in 1983 (haven't you noticed how *nice* the city has >been gradually getting?). Is this true? I set my major campaign there and although I don't keep that up to date with the city (my campaign is set in 1997) I wasn't aware of this. I know that Mayor Giuliani has gone on various clean up campaigns, but that's about all. - -- Julian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:06:10 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IN> Lilim are Demons >Interesting point. Do Lilim really count as a major band? After all, they >are all made by one Superior. There aren't as many of them as any of the >other bands ... Yes but there resonance isn't really tied to that Word, which is why they're more like a major band than the Pachadim. Beyond that they're more useful, and that's what makes the difference in Hell. Timothy, Angel of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:38:06 -0600 From: "James Bearse" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim are Demons Why would Vapula want to waste his time making Lilim? He thinks he's GOD, remember (that Habbalah mindset kicking in again) so why should he duplicate the creatures of a lesser being? Especially when he could be working on the dreaded... VAPULIM! (Mwah-hah-hah-hah!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:15:10 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> [ADMIN] Nothing But Plain Text! OK, you click Tools, and select Options, then go to the Compose tab. The options for what format you send stuff in Outlook Express are there. Prodigal Angel of Turning off HTML in Microsoft Products - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth McCoy" > Okay, I've managed to lose track of my usual "How To Turn Off HTML" > message -- Prodigal, are you still around? However, if you poke around > in the preferences for your given mail-reader, such as Outlook Express, > you will find a place where it says the default is "text/plain" or something > like that. Select that. Sending HTML to the list is bad. (Sending it after > I nail you for it is an u n s u b b i n g offense.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:46:33 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Lilim are Demons >From: "James Bearse" >He thinks he's GOD, >remember (that Habbalah mindset kicking in again) so why should he >duplicate >the creatures of a lesser being? Especially when he could be working on >the >dreaded... VAPULIM! (Mwah-hah-hah-hah!) > Let Us make man, in Our own image... jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:21:22 -0500 (EST) From: jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (Jason Schneiderman) Subject: Re: IN> NYC (was Re: IN> Lilim are Demons) >>Am presently running them through a combination of _No Dinero_ and an >>adventure of my own creation called "The Demon of New York City". The >>Demon went missing in 1983 (haven't you noticed how *nice* the city has >>been gradually getting?). > >Is this true? Mostly true, although it's off by a decade. In 1983, Koch was still in charge and, although I personally preferred him to his successors, NYC was still a harsh, grungy and violent place. It was also a place of astonishing creativity - the artistic, financial and cultural scenes were still hopping and producing things that might be considered "cutting edge." By 19*9*3, on the other hand, Rudy has taken office, the Thompsons Square and Crown Heights riots had taken place, Disney was buying up Times Square and cameras were being installed in Central Park. The "Quality of Life" regime had begun. So, from my experience, it isn't so much that NYC is out of demonic control... it's that The Game has it now, rather than the gang from Shal-Mari. Whether this is an improvement depends on your chronicle. Jason Schneiderman Homesick Balseraph - --- jadasc@ma.ultranet.com (life) werther@hilander.com (play) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 06:35:45 -0600 From: "Kiara S. Legner" Subject: Re: IN> intro, and starting out > > If you've GM'ed (or would it be GM'd?) before then get the GM Guide and that > is it. The only reason to buy the Angelic Players Guide is to get them all > sold so there can be a 2nd Edition. I disagree. The main book is a must - the rest are great resources, but you can play without them. My personal favorites, however, are the Corporeal Players Guide, the GMG, and Night Music (but I *love* Austin, TX, so I'm a bit biased). And the Superiors books, as they come out, are marvelous. But I find myself in both the Angelic Players Guide and in the Infernal Players Guide on a very regular basis. (And, as the person with whom I'm disagreeing's GM... ) > (I really, really, really hate the expanded Res. rules in there...) Agreed about the expanded Res. rules. So just ignore them. The expanded descriptions and explanations of what a choir can and cannot do are marvelous, and worth ignoring the CD tables. You can, of course, use the CD tables for *ideas* and diverge from there, as well... > > Let your players buy the Angelic Players Guide. Really? No wonder you wanted to invent a brand new Choir... Ki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:33:33 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: IN> Eli Has Eli's Word of Creation's focus been decided in Canon? i.e. Does it focus on All Creation or Just the Act of creation? If not what does everyone else think? Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:14:57 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> A new Demonic Band -- Hamsters You spent too long logged in to www.hamsterdance.com, didn't you? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:17:05 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Eli Azrael wrote: > Has Eli's Word of Creation's focus been decided in Canon? > i.e. Does it focus on All Creation or Just the Act of creation? > If not what does everyone else think? I'd say the focus sure *needs* to be decided. Sometimes, Eli is spoken of in terms of cosmological creation, at other times in terms of artistic inspiration. Now, plenty of Archangels have their words cover very different things, like peace and flowers, but the SCALE of difference here, combined with the qualitative difference, has always bothered me. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:36:27 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Eli > > Has Eli's Word of Creation's focus been decided in Canon? > > i.e. Does it focus on All Creation or Just the Act of creation? > > If not what does everyone else think? > > I'd say the focus sure *needs* to be decided. Sometimes, Eli is > spoken of in terms of cosmological creation, at other times in > terms of artistic inspiration. Now, plenty of Archangels have > their words cover very different things, like peace and flowers, > but the SCALE of difference here, combined with the qualitative > difference, has always bothered me. It seems to me that Eli was once much more involved in the cosmological aspects of Creation than he is now. In ages past, he shaped the world, he helped make Man, he taught Man how to create, he taught Man how to, erm, procreate, and was all that and a bag of bagels. These days (i.e. since the dawn of civilization), he's mostly been involved in personal acts of creation. After all, do you really need someone to be mucking about with the cosmological aspects of creation anymore? No. And if you're the Archangel of Creation, and nobody needs you to part the firmament and the waters and all that, do you quit? No. You're creative. You refocus. This is not to say that Eli *can't* make new life, or new choirs, or new soft-drinks, or whatever he wants to make. The sourcebooks imply that Eli can still do these things, but knows better than to do so. He's the ultimate creator. If it can be created, Eli's your man. > Earl Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:36:52 -0600 From: "Trent" Subject: RE: IN> Eli >Has Eli's Word of Creation's focus been decided in Canon? >i.e. Does it focus on All Creation or Just the Act of creation? >If not what does everyone else think? > >Azrael I can't speak for canon but my impression has always been that Eli's word refers to acts of creation this includes The Creation as well as subsequent smaller creations. Note that this does not make him the protector of creation, just it's herald; after all, you have to get rid of the old to make room for new creations. Naturally YMMV. Trent Ofanite of Doubt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:57:05 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Alternate Angels I have written up my own set of rules for angelic role-playing. It isn't In Nomine at all, though there are influences. Rather, it is written as a supplement to the home-made set of rules my current game uses (dubbed "FuRPiG" because we were sure no one would name a game anything as silly as that -- and then SJG called their system "GURPS.") It's also rather long, about 40K. Because of that, and because it isn't IN, I'm not going to post it here, but I'll be happy to send a copy (probably in three big e-mails) to anyone who asks. I'll be even happier to hear comments. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:11:22 GMT From: "Krowe _" Subject: IN> Re: IN -- Demon Prince of Hamsters That was, by far, the most I have laughed while reading a message from this list in a long time. Thank you. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:57:48 -0500 From: Doctor TOC Subject: Re: IN> Alternate Angels Earl Wajenberg wrote: > > I have written up my own set of rules for angelic role-playing. > It's also rather long, about 40K. Because of that, and because > it isn't IN, I'm not going to post it here, but I'll be happy to > send a copy (probably in three big e-mails) to anyone who asks. > I'll be even happier to hear comments. I'll be happy to offer them. Gimme :-) Doctor TOC - -- The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris" ICQ # 4814586 Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar The TOC Files - http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:04:09 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Song of Fruition At 9:25 PM -0700 1/25/00, Tim Groth wrote: > I don't think that its covered in the write up of the song, but can >two celestials use the celestial song of frution to have a child together? >The same goes for two ethereals, and a mixed couple of one ethereal and one >celestial. I don't recall there being a canon decision on this, so it's currently GM decision. I advise making the answer be whatever will be most inconvenient for the PCs. Further, I advise making the answer to _each case_ be that -- as in, the effects on two celestials in corporeal form (or two ethereals, whatever) are unreliable. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:06:15 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Fwd: Re: IN> A new Demonic Band -- Hamsters >From: "Perry Lloyd" >Subject: Re: IN> A new Demonic Band -- Hamsters >Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 03:06:45 PST > >>From: "Genevieve Cogman" >>Subject: IN> A new Demonic Band -- Hamsters > >Oh, came across this, thought you might be interested: >http://www.goats.com/archive/index.html?990202 > >It's a 9-part series of hamster-related gaming comics. >Enjoy! > >-Perry >perrylloyd@hotmail.com >http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/6045/index.html >"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." > - Voltaire >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:07:12 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> intro, and starting out At 1:39 PM +1100 1/26/00, Chris Rose wrote: >> >>My favorite adventure is Feast of Blades, in the GM Pack (also known as the >>GM's screen). The GM screen itself isn't as useful as it could be, since >>what it really needs is a summary of the check digit tables... (I arranged >>all the CD tables on one sheet of paper, typing them in by hand, and my >>spouse folds over the top of the sheet to hang it over the middle panel of >>the GM screen when he uses it.) > >Beth : Post it!! PLEASE !!!!!! I can't! It's illegal! Hm. Hm. Hm..... Tell ya what,though. I'll see if I can get Alain to approve a PDF form of all the resonances on one page (or even just my little MSWord version) to be put as a "sample text" for the main book. >I've been thinkning of eventually making up a summary of the summary tables >in Liber Canticurum, Apg/Ipg (attunements/dissonance conditions), etc .. >This would be BRILLIANT !!!! Have fun.... - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:07:17 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: IN> Seraph in trouble At 10:54 PM -0400 1/25/00, Douglas Muir wrote: >>Another thing to look out for is if she "sells" the Geas to someone -- she >>might be able to bargain a Geashook/4 into a firm Geas of a high level if >>she rents the Seraph out to some Lust-Servitor who wants to be a Knight, >>say... > >Hmmm. That sounds like a bit much for a Geas-4. "Shagging a demon" sounds >like a -5 or a -6 to me. Why not? If it's just straight missionary... From the FotM table, if it's a Geas-4, that's... Risks dissonance, definitely contrary to character. You probably couldn't do a _month's_ worth of "bedslave for a demon," but an hour? Sure... (Now, doing a heavy bondage S&M scene with multiple piercings and a demonic orgy -- _that's_ over the top... O;> ) >Anyway, I thought Andre granted that to Servitors who _seduced_ angels. Hey, if the demon can convince (or thinks he/she can convince...) Andre that it was seduction and not a Geas... who's the Game-Lilim to complain? She gets her Geas, and maybe any other hold... (The Lustie might be convinced that even if it started out a Geas, the angel would be... enjoying ...it afterwards...) >>>Fathering/Mothering the Lilim's child could also be entertaining. > >Doesn't that involve giving up a Force? And being pregnant would require a >geas-6 (year of service). It involves giving up a Force and getting a Superior to help. >Yeah... hmmm... except she can't be made to *keep* secrets, since a lowly >Geas-4 won't allow the infliction of dissonance... Only the risk of it. - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:19:32 -0700 (MST) From: GROTH TIMOTHY PAUL Subject: Re: IN> Eli I personally think that its the act of creation, if it was all of creation then everything would make Eli more powerful and he'd just be God. Then again his celestial name most easily translates into "My God", and Yves named the oldest angels (Eli included). Which means that he may well be God in many ways. Timothy, Angel of Rambling On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Azrael wrote: > Has Eli's Word of Creation's focus been decided in Canon? > i.e. Does it focus on All Creation or Just the Act of creation? > If not what does everyone else think? > > Azrael > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:03:25 -0600 (EST) From: "Derek K." Subject: IN> IN Movie: Instinct Just watched Instinct this weekend. If you've not seen it, you might not want to read any more, as there are minor spoilers here. I think Anthony Hopkins' character, the anthropologist, makes a lovely servant of Jordi. He's an animal lover, he abandons humanity to live with the animals. Lovely Jordi stuff. His mission, in general, is to preserve animal life, and to inspire others to do the same, as well as helping humans. He's not particularly social (not that Jordi is), but he has interactions. Just good stuff. And the movie is good besides, methinks. That is all. Cheers, Derek K. Angel of Anti-spam, in service to Orc and Demon of Networks, Calabite of Technology in service to Kobal. - -- "Eris loves me, this I know, for Discordia tells me so . . . ." -Archangel Beth. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:01:26 +1100 From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> Alternate Angels > Earl Rock my world, errr....please Azrael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:54:30 PST From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Muppets First of all, Miss Piggy is *not* an angel. She's a Lilim. Selfishness is her middle name. She either serves Greed, Gluttony, or is a Free Lilim, I'm not sure which. There's a great deal to be said for the theory that the Cookie Monster is a Soldier in service to Greed. If he were a demon, he'd be more efficient. Now, on the other side: Kermit would be a Mercurian of Eli, possibly in service to Wind. Lovable furry ol'Grover is definitely a Cherub, but I am open to suggestion as to his Superior. Oscar the Grouch -- I like him but I can't fit him in anywhere except as a Servitor of Stone (choir unknown). Janet Anderson ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:25:26 CST From: "Justin Buhler" Subject: IN> Prince of Gambling? While reading through my In Nomine book (For no apparent reason) I noticed that Shal-Mari was made up of Casinos, Bordellos, Restaurants, and Theaters, and that Andre contros the bordellos, Haagenti the restuarants, and Kobal the theaters. It was then it hit me, who controls the Casinos? I presumed it was a Prince of Gambling, and immediately (The next day) went to work on a write-up for such a character. However, before I posted him here I wanted to know if there already is a Prince of Gambling in any solid text so that I don't make a fool of myself. If not then I'll post my ideas unless there are any objections (And unfortunately no, I do not have a webpage yet, so I can't just HTML it =P) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:29:58 -0500 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> Prince of Gambling? At 10:25 PM -0600 1/26/00, Justin Buhler wrote: >While reading through my In Nomine book (For no apparent reason) I >noticed that Shal-Mari was made up of Casinos, Bordellos, >Restaurants, and Theaters, and that Andre contros the bordellos, >Haagenti the restuarants, and Kobal the theaters. It was then it hit >me, who controls the Casinos? I presumed it was a Prince of >Gambling, and immediately (The next day) went to work on a write-up >for such a character. However, before I posted him here I wanted to >know if there already is a Prince of Gambling in any solid text so >that I don't make a fool of myself. If not then I'll post my ideas >unless there are any objections (And unfortunately no, I do not have >a webpage yet, so I can't just HTML it =P) My presumption is it's Mammon, the Prince of Greed. With competition from Haagenti. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:51:30 -0700 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> Prince of Gambling? Actually in the Shal-Mari write up (or somewhere else which establishes canon) it says that every casino is owned by a different Prince. Baal's has gladitorial combat, Andre's has what you'd expect for entertainment and Nybbas has clips from other casino's perfomances. This reminds me when I first read about this I wondered, "How do they pay big pay-offs?". Using a normal gambling scheme you can win more essence than you can hold, which lead me to think that Hell has some sort of currency. Coins that can hold essence and can tell you there owner, they'd probably be issued by the Game. Timothy, Angel of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:51:27 PST From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> Prince of Gambling? >From: Whistling in the Dark > >My presumption is it's Mammon, the Prince of Greed. With competition >from Haagenti. > > I'd always assumed it was mainly Asmodeus. Game, Stacked Deck, Place your bets, double or quit... jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1511 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2000 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.